So sorry another which lens thread- 200 2.8L or 300 4L

I'm interested in back yard birds for the next lens I get. I can hand feed my chickadees so they are friendly enough to get within 5-10 feet with a camera. The other birds I can't get as close, but if I'm about 15-20 feet away they'll come around.

One concern is my health, I worry about the lens weighing too much. I have a 300 f/4 FD which weighs about the same as the EF version and it's ok for a while then gets too heavy for me. I was thinking about buying a monopod so that'll help a bit. Another concern is the price of course, I can either get the 200 and the macro or the 300 only. Yet another is the speed of the f/4 (and no i cannot afford the 300 f/2.8) I find that the FD 300 is slow in some times of day and can be limiting. The last concern is the 200 can be used for other things where the 300 may be tricky to use. But the main purpose for it is nature and birds.

Either way I will be getting the 1.4x teleconverter.

just a thought why not the 100-400 ?

That would be a agreat choice, but I could never get into zooms with my FD stuff. So I'm trying to stick with primes.

Of course the 400 5.6 is close in price to the 300 and close in weight too. Great, now I have three to choose from!!

Last week I've placed the order for the 300. I did have the same problem of choice. The 200 looks so more portable and is much cheaper. For the price of the 300, I could buy two or three very nice lenses. (200 + 85 f.e.). Choosing the 300 meens the last lens for me in the comming 5 years...
Sadly, I didn't have the time to use my 300 yet..

135L and 300L would be my picks. I would take a 300 F/4 Over 200L + 1.4 anyday, and the 135L with a 1.4x is close to 200mm.

The 300/f4 is light. Not 200/2.8 light but very light and can handhold it all day on my 20D + grip.

Are you shooting in any low light at all? It you are then the 400/5.6 is really slow.

As JagWire said, the 300 at f4 will be a little better than the 200+1.4. But with the 200 you have a great lens for low light especially if you don't need the reach and you can get closer to the subjects.

If you're on tight budget, then get the 200 and and a cheaper Tamron 1.4 TC.

gardengirl13 wrote in post #2243004
I'm interested in back yard birds for the next lens I get. I can hand feed my chickadees so they are friendly enough to get within 5-10 feet with a camera. The other birds I can't get as close, but if I'm about 15-20 feet away they'll come around.

One concern is my health, I worry about the lens weighing too much. I have a 300 f/4 FD which weighs about the same as the EF version and it's ok for a while then gets too heavy for me. I was thinking about buying a monopod so that'll help a bit. Another concern is the price of course, I can either get the 200 and the macro or the 300 only. Yet another is the speed of the f/4 (and no i cannot afford the 300 f/2.8) I find that the FD 300 is slow in some times of day and can be limiting. The last concern is the 200 can be used for other things where the 300 may be tricky to use. But the main purpose for it is nature and birds.

Either way I will be getting the 1.4x teleconverter.

Both are great lenses, the 300 f4L IS + 1.4X is the thing for garden birds though. I did get some good shots with the 200/2.8L II but had to crop, fortunatly the 200 is sharp enough to take it. The 200 would be good for larger animals like deer or fox that might wander in.

They both work well with the 1.4X, they 200 + 1.4X is nearly as sharp as the 300 f4 a stop closed. The 200 also works well with the 2X although AF is slow. The 300 is OK with the 2X but you have to manual focus on a non-pro body.

The 300 or in combination with either converter is OK to handhold at least in short bursts, obviously the smaller weight and size of the 200 makes it much easier to handhold, but note it gets very long and unwieldy with the EF 2X on and does not come with a tripod ring unlike the 300.

Finally the IS will make all the difference handholding and will still help a lot if you use a monopod. I have to say I have not used the 200 nearly as much as I used to before I had the 300, but I tend to take the 200 with me as a "just in case I need a long lens" for general and landscape work.

Some examples:
A cropped shot with the 200, about 30% of the frame width on a 20D

HTTP response: 404 | MIME changed to 'text/html' | Byte size: ZERO

HTTP response: 404 | MIME changed to 'text/html' | Byte size: ZERO

HTTP response: 404 | MIME changed to 'text/html' | Byte size: ZERO

I'd get the 300. Reach and IS are the obvious factors.

Monopod and a 400/5.6

you could get the 300f4isL and use ex tubes for closeups not quite a macro but iv seen great shots posted here with that combo.just my thoughs.
Rob.

If birding is the goal I too would go for the 400/5.6 or , as already mentioned, the 100-400L.

gardengirl13 wrote in post #2243061
Of course the 400 5.6 is close in price to the 300 and close in weight too. Great, now I have three to choose from!!

Keep in mind that the MFD is 4.9' for the 300 and 11.5' for the 400. I also vote for the 300. It is on my wishlist.

In2Photos wrote in post #2244097
Keep in mind that the MFD is 4.9' for the 300 and 11.5' for the 400. I also vote for the 300. It is on my wishlist.

Yeah, I'm really confused why the 400 is such a popular lens. The 300 + 1.4x is similiar focal length, the 300 is sharp, gives you the ability to shoot at 300mm if you want at F4, and the 300mm is smaller + is, and the minimum focusing distance is a huge advantage imo. I've heard the 400 + 1.4x isn't too good anyway, and some copies of the 100-400L are as sharp if not sharper as the 400 f5.6?


BTW, the 300 F4 non-IS or IS is on my list as well.

JaGWiRE wrote in post #2244361
Yeah, I'm really confused why the 400 is such a popular lens. The 300 + 1.4x is similiar focal length, the 300 is sharp, gives you the ability to shoot at 300mm if you want at F4, and the 300mm is smaller + is, and the minimum focusing distance is a huge advantage imo. I've heard the 400 + 1.4x isn't too good anyway, and some copies of the 100-400L are as sharp if not sharper as the 400 f5.6?

BTW, the 300 F4 non-IS or IS is on my list as well.

I told you why in the bokeh thread.

In2Photos wrote in post #2243345
Well a naked prime is generally sharper than a prime+TC. Also the TC sill affect AF performance. The 400 is one of the best AF performing lenses available.

To add to that the 400 5.6 is generally sharper than the 100-400. If not then the 100-400 is really good or the 400 has something wrong with it. You mention that the 400 w/ TC isn;t that good, but it is. MF only unless you have a 1D or TC that does not report. But if you had the 400 you wouldn't need the TC like you do with the 300 to get to 400mm. I still want the 300.